For the past 40 years I’ve consulted and coached leaders from the factory floor to the boardroom in some of the world’s best companies in multiple industries. Basically, I help people get good stuff done while avoiding the Dilbert Zone. Early in my career I covered politics and business for Texas newspapers, and freelanced for publications ranging from The New York Times and The National Observer to Boys’ Life and Parade magazine. Then I was a university professor, worked on Wall Street, served in two White House administrations, advised several U.S. Senators, and headed worldwide communications at Campbell Soup Company. My Ph.D. (Purdue University) is in organizational behavior, but my orientation is the real world of real work. My bestselling book is CHANGE-friendly LEADERSHIP: How to Transform Good Intentions into Great Performance. Connect with me at www.DuncanWorldwide.com and @DoctorDuncan

Great Leaders See, Say, and Do

The second but most neglected bottom-line variable is: What did we experience? Experience here refers to the emotional quotient of pursuing objectives. How did it feel? If individuals and teams achieve results but experience enormous amounts of stress and anxiety while doing so, there is cause to worry. Why are engagement, productivity and optimism suffering when people pursue tough challenges? In contrast, if the emotional quotient in the process of achieving important goals was positive (e.g., people felt inspired, experienced a high sense of solidarity with their team, and were satisfied with their performance), noting this effort can help build an even more competent and engaged culture.

My recommendation is that leaders think about all three of the bottom lines as they challenge their teams and organizations to reach important goals. The trifecta of achieving results, learning valuable lessons, and having the experience of a “great ride” is a formula for sustainable success.

You differentiate between leading by lightning and leading by listening. Give us examples of each, and tell us what you think of the implications.

I developed this leadership style dichotomy as I was studying the work of Chris Argyris, one of the first business theorists to study organization development, which focuses on the importance of having advocacy skills and inquiry skills to effective leadership.

In my system, leading by lightning is associated with being a strong advocate for a new idea. The new idea pops into the mind of the leader and he is then able to rush in and enroll others in their cause. In contrast, leading by listening is most closely associated with having the probing skills of advocacy. Leaders using this style listen deeply to others who are exchanging ideas, discussing options, and voicing opinions. He is then able to blend what he hears into a coherent picture of the future that takes into account multiple points of view.

In my work I have found that each leader has a home base tendency. By nature and nurture, they are more skilled in one style than the other. For example, being the first-born child in the family may cultivate strong leader by lightning tendencies. Then, other variables, such as personality, gender, peer group status, and leadership opportunities, converge to form one’s home base tendencies. A good balance of leading by lightning and leading by listening is the goal for optimal effectiveness.

In promoting something as seemingly pedestrian as performance improvement, how can a leader “say it with substance, sizzle, and soul” so it doesn’t come across as just another pep talk?

My colleagues and I at The Cramer Institute have created an ABT tool called “Courageous Conversations,” which is useful for giving people feedback about how they can improve their performance. This is a comprehensive process, but I always say, what starts well usually ends well – especially when it comes to feedback people might not want to hear.

The first step in Courageous Conversations is “Tell the Truth Fast.” The framework for this step involves giving people feedback using the following stem sentence …

“When you _________ (fill in the blank with the area for improvement, for example, procrastinate, are late, miss deadlines, etc.) then _________ (fill in the blank with the negative impact of the performance deficiency, for example, others feel left out and unimportant, the standards of the whole team are lowered, etc.).

Then you follow up with:

“I know you don’t want to impact the team’s performance or your own performance in a negative way. Would you be willing to talk to me about how you can change your behavior as well as your impact? I believe we can work this out together and improve your performance so that it is at a level you can proud of.”

In the example, there is plenty of substance around the specific behavior that has specific negative impacts. When it comes to sizzle, the person giving the feedback is doing so with an encouraging tone that is devoid of negative judgments. And perhaps the most soulful aspect of having a “Courageous Conversation” is revealed in the positive image of the future that the leader provides in the closing statements.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.